Bostadsdiskriminering- Hur kan diskriminering på bostadsmarknaden bevisas?

Sammanfattning: Summary This work is based on the assumption that discrimination in the housing market is present and in a desire to shed light on how the legal anti-discrimination system works in this area. The focus of this study is the five cases of discrimination that have been decided by Swedish courts and the fifteen cases in which DO (The Equality Ombudsman) has reached a settlement in the housing area. The perspective of this study is that of the claimant and the central question is: How can discrimination in the housing market be proved? To answer this question the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof in Ch. 6 Sec. 3 of The Discrimination Act becomes important. This has been studied mainly from the point of view of direct discrimination since most of the cases studied concern this form of discrimination. The reversal of the burden of proof rule is to be seen as a rule of presumption. This means that the trial of discrimination cases is done in two steps. In the first step, it is considered whether the claimant, the victim of discrimination, has been able to present sufficient evidence to create a presumption of discrimination by proving that a disadvantage occurred and that there is a comparable situation. If the claimant is able to do this, the burden of proof turns to the respondent and it is for the respondent to come forward with evidence that the disadvantage has no connection with the discrimination ground. That the burden of proof rule should be applied as a presumption rule and that it is the respondent who has the burden of proving (no) causation is evident in Swedish discrimination cases. The reversal of the burden of proof rule also seems to have had a major impact on the opportunity to achieve settlements in housing matters. Probably because of to the fact that the counterparty often have had difficulties to prove that the disadvantage that the person has suffered was not caused solely by reasons that can not be linked to the discrimination ground. From legal doctrine and EU legal practice, it appears that the burden of proof placed on the claimant in the first step of the trial many times may be reduced. However, the Swedish legal preparatory works seems not to deal with this question and in the Swedish labour law cases the claimant rarely - if ever- receives a reduction in the burden of proof in the first step creating the presumption. To some extent, although, the claimant in Swedish housing cases seems to have received a reduction in the burden of proof. However, in one of the cases, tried in a district court, it can be questioned whether the high requirement of proof set can be said to be in line with the EU practice on the reversal of the burden of proof rule Many studies have proved discrimination on an aggregate level. The studies made by DO and some academic studies have been using the so-called practice testing method. An important question in this study is if this method could be used as a strategy in individual cases. The study finds that practice test seems to be very well suited for legal anti-discrimination work in the housing area and that it is a strategy for success.